compare_tableEach option's value on every criterion of the Every source of UK school term dates, compared comparison — the full table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | No | one option's name, else all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the content of the output and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether it depends on prior enquiry state, how the table is formatted, or what additional context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not cleanly written. The phrase 'Every source of UK school term dates, compared' appears to be an unintended insertion and does not contribute useful meaning. The core idea is front-loaded, but the malformed wording harms clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should more fully explain what the returned table looks like, the meaning of 'option' in practice, and how this tool fits into the overall enquiry workflow. It conveys only the general shape of the output and leaves significant room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single parameter with high coverage: 'one option's name, else all'. The description's mention of 'Each option's value' aligns with the parameter but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says the tool returns each option's value on every criterion, which identifies the resource as a full comparison table and loosely distinguishes it from siblings like compare_criteria or compare_options. However, it lacks a clear verb and the phrasing is garbled: 'Every source of UK school term dates, compared comparison' reads like a merge artifact and obscures the intended meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use compare_table versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The optional 'option' parameter suggests filtering, but the description does not explain when to provide a specific option versus omitting it to get all options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The compare_* tools are clearly separated into criteria, options, and the full matrix, and the enquiry_* tools split process explanation, schema, and submission. There is minor overlap potential between compare_criteria and compare_table since the table also includes criteria, but descriptions make the intended use distinguishable.
compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, while enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields put the noun first and submit_enquiry uses verb_noun again. The mixed ordering is still readable, but the naming is not fully systematic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a server covering both a comparison view and an enquiry submission workflow. Each tool supports a distinct step without redundancy or bloat.
The comparison side covers criteria, options, and the full result table, while the enquiry side covers explanation, field discovery, and two-step submission. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to check an enquiry's status or resend the confirmation email, but they are not essential to the stated workflow.